Ck Sharma vs Puneet Gauba & Anr
2012 Latest Caselaw 1832 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                               Date of Judgment: 16.03.2012

+     CM(M) 310/2012 & CM No. 4660/2012


CK SHARMA                                                ..... Petitioner
                              Through    Mr. Nagender Deswal, Adv.

                     versus


PUNEET GAUBA & ANR                                       ..... Respondents
                 Through                 Nemo.


      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR


INDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral)

1 Order impugned is dated 03.02.2012 vide which the objections

raised by the judgment debtor that the execution petition is not

maintainable for the reason that the decree dated 01.05.2006 has been

set aside, had been dismissed and rightly so.

2 Record speaks for itself. There is no dispute to the dates noted in

the impugned order. Against the decree dated 01.05.2006, an appeal had

been filed; the decree dated 01.05.2006 was set aside; matter had been

remanded back to the trial Court for a decision; the application filed by

the defendant under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure

(hereinafter referred to as the 'Code') was taken up for re-hearing; it was

dismissed; an appeal was filed against the said order which was also

dismissed on 03.10.2008; necessary corollary was that the original

decree dated 01.05.2006 stood revived; the order dated 03.10.2008

which was by the first appellate Court endorsing the findings of the trial

Judge on the dismissal of the application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the

Code had in fact become final. Even on a specific query put to the

learned counsel for the petitioner on this count, he has no answer. It was

in this background that the warrants of attachment had been ordered

against the judgment debtor which order has now been impugned before

this Court.

3 In this background, it is clear that this petition is a gross abuse of

the process of the Court; it is wastage of its precious time; the

proceedings which had emanated after the passing of the decree dated

01.05.2006 all show that after the dismissal of application under Order 9

Rule 13 of the Code which was right up to the first appellate Court and

which order has since attained a finality, decree dated 01.05.2006 stood

revived for which execution petition had been filed by the decree holder

in which warrants of attachment had been ordered. This petition being

vexatious is nothing but to delay the whole process of the Court; it is

dismissed with costs of `10,000/-.

INDERMEET KAUR, J MARCH 16, 2012 A